38 comments:

Thank you for posting this, Robert. What astounded me the most is the insinuation by Tucker that the racial makeup of the country changes dramatically when you have people from Latin America or wherever doing the menial chores and that such would create social unrest, then quipped that the situation looked like the early 19th century.

Uh, what did you say, Tucker? That there's no difference between immigrants and Acrican slaves?

The CATO scholar claims there is already a welfare wall for legal immigrants that lasts 5 years. If that is accurate, and I would argue it needs to be true on a state and local level as well, there is no reason not to have unlimited legal immigration.

However, the US government (even under President Ron Paul) would be responsible for protecting its citizens' life, liberty and property from foreign invasion. Therefore, extensive vetting of legal immigrants is proper. And since immigration is free and open, a zero tolerance policy for illegal immigration is also proper.

That said, there is probably a better technological solution to the problem of illegal border crossing than building a wall.

In principle I could get behind state vetting immigrants to keep out actual dangerous criminals.

As a practical matter, though, it would be tricky to furnish the state with the requisite powers to vet but to also ensure that it wouldn't use those same powers to implement more stringent prohibition in the future. I'm not sure if it's worth the risk.

Exactly. The risk of abuse by the State for the benefit of politically-connected groups is very great. While there's something to say about vetting criminal out of an immigration pool, the biggest problem is, as you said, the logistics of such a system. An ever-increasing State is much more dangerous to people's property and freedom than immigrants who come to the US to work.

─ The immigration issue is mainly one that revolves around tragedy of the commons and welfare arguments. ─

Both are lies. Immigration has NOTHING to do with a Tragedy of the Commons scenario. Each immigrant engages in VOLUNTARY trade with employers and renters or sellers. As for welfare, undocumented immigrants are not eligible for benefits by LAW. Only Trumpistas seem to think that the contrary is true.

Torres I gave you a brief overview of the welfare they are eligible for last time you presented this notion they are not. There is welfare available on the federal and state levels for those that qualify. It's less welfare than those born here but it isn't no welfare.

─ Torres I gave you a brief overview of the welfare they are eligible for last time you presented this notion they are not. ─

Which I reviewed and found that you were misrepresenting said eligibility as if it was something one can say about all immigrants including undocumented immigrants, when such is not the case.

I do have to concede to you one thing: at least you were not claiming that immigrants receive more in 'benefits' that they pay, by misconstruing the use of ROADZ! or compulsory schooling as a "benefit", like Tucker was implying ("They Consume The Fruits Of This Society!")

─ I agree. Just go to any border state hospital, and you cannot make that claim. ─

EMTALA is not a benefit, David. It's a mandate from the Federal Government, something akin to a de facto expropriation. It's insidious and costly, but construing it as "welfare" in order to attack immigrants is engaging in equivocation.

─ there are definitely costs to the public ─

What costs the public is the government, not immigrants. Blame the government.

Well you have a virtually unlimited supply of poorly trained and poorly educated people in the world on which you can draw to get the wage rate down further for the lower end jobs. Get ready for a flood of additional people drawn to the limited pool of US benefits with no socially negative impacts, obviously. Pass the gumballs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE

ES: There is a massive supply of unskilled labor. I don't think anyone would argue that.

FT: Comparative advantage? The unskilled immigrants that are arriving are not only unskilled, but they have culture and language impediments as well. There is a massive surplus of unskilled labor and bringing in more unskilled immigrants is not going to address that socially disruptive fact.

Re: David jensen,─ FT: Comparative advantage? The unskilled immigrants that are arriving are not only unskilled, but they have culture and language impediments as well. ─

Which means they're not going to be taking jobs that Americans who speak English and are skilled are willing to do and for which they're more productive. The unskilled, non English-speaking folks can thus take on the jobs for which Americans are TOO PRODUCTIVE. That's Comparative Advantage.

─ There is a massive surplus of unskilled labor ─

You're exaggerating. And even if you weren't, what of it? The Market provides the necessary signals regarding labor surpluses. People DO move around looking for better deals, you know.

─ and bringing in more unskilled immigrants is not going to address that socially disruptive fact. ─

Who is "bringing in more"? People have will. They're bringing themselves. Stop equivocating.

How can an illegal, making $10 an hour doing landscaping with 3 kids in public school at $15k/year each and using emergency rooms as primary care (which can easily add up to $15-$20k of public money), be said to be 'paying for public services'?

Re: ChadThrustington,─ How can an illegal, making $10 an hour doing landscaping with 3 kids in public school ─

Not all undocumented immigrants have kids and not all use medical services. And they DO pay into the system. They pay local and state taxes. Also, school is an IMPOSITION, not a "service" Only Marxists (and Trumpistas) would dare call such impositions a "benefit" or a "service".

NAxALT. Not All X Are Like That. There are some immigrants that pay more into the system than they take out in services, therefore you have to be overrun with third worlders or else you're a statist. Good goyim.

As I have stated before, you go first. Do away with welfare and government owned lands then, and then, we can have open borders.Even then, we will form communities of like minded property owners and follow RW's principles: you tresspass we shoot on sight.

Right after the public welfare, infrastructure and service proponents stop confiscating our wealth for the foreign and domestic born free loaders and their self-appointed political saviors to mooch off the rest of us.

As a postscript: Yesterday night (Feb 22 2017) in what I take as Tucker's version of "cleansing the palate", Tucker Carlson booked grenade-throwing, right-wing socialist Ann Coulter, whose idea of good immigration is "maybe a few from The Netherlands or England" which she said while appearing on Stossel. You know, white people.

+Paul: I agree w your point. I will add, it is sad that in spite of USA's quest for a diverse culture accommodating many ethnicities, some elements of other cultures/ethnicities, have come to resent the "host" culture and peoples, which is predominantly white in the USA. Perhaps that a bit like biting the hand that waives you in? Would this social/racial tension have existed if we were more exclusionary in the past on ethnicity of immigration? Either way, there will be name calling.

Lol...Tucker insinuates that you have the be a religious fanatic (sound economics is a religion now?) to understand that voluntary exchange works? What is this? Tucker's Soviet propaganda hour?

I really love how this quick debate really brings into focus Tucker's absolute devotion to the state! Nowrasteh made it absolutely clear that Tucker fully endorses the welfare state and state infrastructure handouts. Tucker's only concern is that his preferred group of tax payer serfs receive their handout. Hilarious!

Phase out welfare already and watch these statists melt in their seats!

These supposed 'conservatives' are nothing more than right-wing Socialists. I at least can thank El Trumpo for encouraging them to remove their masks and show us that they were just as hostile towards markets and capitalism as their brethren on the Progressive left.

When TC alleges that immigrants consume more "public services" than they pay for, he fails to see that this is true of many Americans too. Why not expel them too? When TC says that increasing the number of workers hurts current American workers, he fails to see that this is true of those Americans graduating from high school/college who enter the labor force for the first time. Why not prohibit graduation? Similarly, let's move to the old Chinese policy of one child per family, since births also increase the future labor supply. And if we're trying to use artificial means to protect current American workers, let's outlaw the use of machines and technology, which surely displace American workers. Reminds me of the old story about Milton Friedman visiting China and seeing workers digging holes with shovels instead of mechanized backhoes; he asks why and is told that this creates more jobs. So he responds "Why not make them use spoons then?"

Just because Libertarianism stands for freedom from big coercive State, does not mean Libertarianism cannot simultaneously advocate community, and rejection of factors that interfere with the character of our community. Think of it this way. I own my home. Between my neighbors and I, we collectively own our community. I see no violation of property rights, for us to put up a gate to our community. Certainly no more than the gate on my home. In fact, there are many gated communities in USA. Collective property rights is not the same thing as collectivism, which is counter to the philosophy of Libertarianism.Humans are complex, and we choose to live and communicate with those we have things in common with. This includes cultural and political values, and more obviously language. Maybe in the absence of welfarism, this immigration debate would be a non-issue for Libertarians. I can tell you this. As a former organizing member within the local Libertarian Party, there are many that oppose some outsider politician interfering with our choices. Accepting the notion of immigration is not universal amongst us.